It is undoubtedly one of the debates of the moment, because the videos of this father have become viral and there are thousands of fathers and mothers trying the method, which might not be as 'nice' as it seems to the naked eye.
As we told you a few days ago, Daniel Eisenman He has become famous on the networks for sharing two videos in his baby's arms. At a time of crying, he puts into practice his technique, which consists in using the yoga mantra "OM" lengthening it and maintaining the tone, until it stops crying. However, Is it a good or a bad solution?
His technique: the OOOOMM
If you have not seen them yet, I leave you with the two videos that have made this father a known "sleepy baby":
In a matter of seconds, thanks to the mantra, your baby stops crying, being in apparent calm. I hallucinated when I saw it, I assure you. Although I confess that I did not like the initial moment of each of the videos. In the first one, he hopes to make sure that his baby is clearly seen crying (because the most important thing for him is that we see his talent and not so much calm the baby); and in the second one he even imitates the crying of the girl before proceeding to calm her down (they are only details that cause me discomfort to see them ... I do not say anything more than that).
In addition, in neither of them does he do anything more than use the "OOOM", does not hug her, does not modify the baby's posture or bring it closer to her chest as we would the parents. Come on, you see a very cold scene in both videos, although it may be intentional: if you want to show that "OOOM" works, the logical thing is to do nothing more, because if not, the other methods could make us think that it calms for them and not for the mantra.
But the baby is scared
Just yesterday, thanks to Terra Mater, we were able to read the opinion of two experts in the field, Nils Y Jill Bergman, he prestigious neonatologist and expert and educator in Kangaroo Care she, who warn that everything that glitters is not gold, since the girl does not calm down, but is scared. According to him Dr. Bergman, referring to the first video:
The father begins to emit a sound on a monotonous note
Immediate response: fright, moro reflex = the baby is scared.
4 seconds later: extended arm, twitching fingers = surveillance, search.
5 seconds later: the baby tries to hold on, there is no eye contact, close your eyes = state of fear.
2 seconds later: tachypnea, rapid breathing = evaluation confirms that the threat continues.
9 seconds later: continuous rapid breathing is maintained, but maintained = changes to the freezing state.
7 seconds later: Still breathing with difficulty, still tense and grasped, eyes closed = sustained freezing.
3 seconds later: yawn sign (actually more like a slow gasp) ... it is not a sign of sleep, but a distress signal (may reflect a self-balancing self-equilibrium): warning signal finished, is no longer freezing .
In the end: Looking again for eye contact, back to a state of vigilance, still in a state of fear.
Then, Dr. Bergman wonders something really important: Why was the baby crying?
For its part, Jill Bergman (his wife), explains it this way:
Dad does not look at the baby.
It does not make eye contact.
He does not perceive the baby's expression.
He does not speak to him in a low voice.
It does not contain its arms in search.
He just overwhelms her with a very loud noise.
The baby's arms twitch, remain extended.
Try to find comfort by looking for contact with dad's hands.
Close your eyes tightly to hide or dissociate from the noise you cannot avoid.
Eyes very closed in avoidance.
Very fast breathing
I think the baby is in "panic mode."
Yes, it has been conditioned, trained to shut up. "Maybe" has become accustomed to those very high vibrations.
She stays still (in panic, since she can't go).
But I think the baby is still for the same dissociation / protest-despair reaction as in the freeze response of the vacuum cleaner trick.
That is, the girl does not calm down, but rather gets scared. He does not relax, but remains still without the possibility of reacting to the possible threat.
Is it really for so much?
Following these words of the Bergman have added more theories added, such as that the girl is becoming dead to save her life, as many animals do instinctively when they consider that there is imminent danger.
In the same entry of Terra Mater a study is shared that demonstrates that the sounds maintained cause the activation of the tonsil of babies: they get alert, they are activated to try to assess the threat and decide whether to escape or fight, in what is a primary instinct that we all have (when something scares us and increases the pulsations for the discharge of adrelin, which prepares us to react ).
So, having said all this, and without taking the reason from the Bergmans, I can only say that I don't think so much (But beware, that I speak from my position as a nurse and father, and my opinion has little or no validity next to that of these two experts). But I explain myself in case anyone is interested in reading it:
It is true that in the analyzed video the baby reacts by shutting up and making movements as if searching, accelerating even breathing. Do you suffer? Yes, from what they say, yes. Do you suffer more than when you cried? I do not know. My children are already older, but when they cry and calm them, after stopping crying in my arms, or in those of their mother, they have agitated breathing, they keep on sobbing and they persist for a while until they calm down.
It could be that the breath they interpret as panic is no more than the remnant of crying. In the second video, if you look, the baby makes many fewer gestures. It could be that so much "OOOM" is learning not to cry (which would be a problem, because it will be stop "explaining" what happens, suffering in silence), but it could be that, in fact, it is calming down after Sound and silence that comes later.
But he gets scared
So is. Listen to a maintained and serious sound and, as an animal that comes into the world prepared to survive, he gets scared at the sound. Stop crying, shut up, and start analyzing the danger. The sound ceases, is in the arms of his father, there is no risk and remains calm. Or does it just look like it? It is not known ... as I say, I could be silent, but still scared.
That's how it works too, as Jill Bergman says, white noise. White noise has the peculiarity of being constant and flat. No frequency excels over another, so the baby does not know what he is hearing. Faced with this situation (the noise of a vacuum cleaner, the dryer, the kitchen extractor), there is a brain block and the baby stops issuing an answer.
In the elderly it is, in fact, advisable for those who fail to concentrate. If music is not enough to isolate you from the rest, white noise can help you focus on the activity that requires your maximum performance.
But in small ones it may not be a good solution, let alone if it is used as a regular resource. My big question comes here: Is the "OOOM" such a bad resource for parents, when they have already tried everything? I remember coming home from work, taking my baby in my arms (especially with Guim, the third), and soon start crying like there's no tomorrow. Miriam showered, or needed a few minutes for anything, always running to return right away, but he cried and cried in my arms, even though he rocked, sang, cradled, caressed him, ... everything that at some point I had worked with the previous ones.
Would I have done this "OOOM" had I known? Well I do not know. Knowing that puts them on alert, I don't know. But it would be a choice between two options: stress from crying maintained or stress from "OOOM". What is better, what is worse?
And then I do what maybe I shouldn't do, compare it to an adult. So I think that, in one of the cases, there is intense crying, intense suffering, a loop of tears and cries that never cease; and in the other there is someone who is alerted to a possible threat. If I am alone at home and I hear a noise, I leave what I am doing, I put myself on alert and evaluate the situation (like the girl hearing her father). If the noise repeats, it probably scares me because something is causing it. If the noise does not repeat itself, I will tell myself that it was nothing and that I am not in danger (I interpret what the girl is doing, see that the sound disappears and that, in her father's arms, there is no risk).
And in those I am, as I say, valuing if it is worse to have the child crying or shut up for having alerted.
But I repeat: I speak of the last option, because if you always do this, you are not attending to the real demand of the baby or taking into account that it makes no sense to scare someone continuously (this would be totally counterproductive: imagine that every time you have a complaint or demand someone puts you in a situation of alert).
Before, all the logical solutions would come that all parents instinctively leave, such as giving the baby to the mother (well, this is more than instinctive is logical), hugging, caressing, rocking, singing ... but singing without being a sound like OOOM, I suppose. Why music calms the beastthey say. But what if they do not tame, but are being put on alert?
What do you think?
